All fine and dandy, but Stallman's views on freedom and distribution are offtopic when talking about what software business will use. I'm attacking the cop out that OSS is all about developers scratching an itch. That's great and all, but it doesn't help me deploy. All my employeer cares about is getting stuff that works for us. If that means you pay someone to develop the software, then we will. Gladly. See, we don't want to hire a department of developers. We're not in the software business. That is why I don't care about source code. At work, OSS is a tool, not a right. I don't give a rat's ass that I can send the copy to a friend at work. My point is that if you want to see Linux and other OSS software used, sooner or later someone in the OSS community has to step up and be held accountable to the user community. If that doesn't sound like something you care for, then don't be suprised when Microsoft dominates almost every aspect of business software.
You can't possibly be suggesting that someone who can't afford new hardware can afford to call Microsoft for support, are you? Micrsoft does not support their stuff for free. If you call them, you will have to pay them. MS pushed the onus on the OEMs to do support. Since the hardware in question is definately out of support the only alternatives are to call Microsoft and pay a fee, or turn to the web. And just because MS dropped support doesn't mean Joe's Computer Shack will drop support. Here's a nickle, buy a clue.
The old Open Source dodge and weave. Your argument is a cop out. Either OSS is ready for the prime time or not. You either are a bunch of backroom hacks or serious players. Decide. Can't have it both ways. Don't want to answer to the end user experience? Don't bitch about Microsoft owning the desktop market AND the server market. No, really. Stop. Want end users to USE your software? Well, then you have to answer for the work you've done. Sorry, that's how it works. You see I don't care about source code. I have a computer. I have tasks to accomplish. Source code is a foreign language that I don't speak, and have no intention of speaking. So for me, you're no different than MS. You have a product you want me to use, so it better be compelling. If that is too much to ask of you, see my point above then stop wondering why right thinking individuals (and business) will gladly pay Microsoft. Either get in or STFU.
Since when is this only happening to coders? Seems this is happening with phone support far, far more than with coders. IT is much more than programming. The Dell situation highlights this perfectly. It is phone jockeys by and large we are talking about. So put your dick away, we don't want to see it.
By and large, outsourcing is the new diet fad of the business world. Outsourcing makes sense when what you outsource isn't part of your core business. For example, let's say your an auto supplier. If you need a custom website, or customer front end to a database, it would make a lot more sense to outsource those tasks rather than hire a whole coding department to handle it. But it seems like we like to do everything ass-backwards. Non-software companies hire entire departments of coders, but software houses outsource. Its a mad, mad, mad world.
Not as scarce as it is made out to be. It was in the days of dial-up, but not now. Afterall, we have miles and miles of unused lines sitting around unsued now. The only other issue is that they built this big network and have this small, small gateway out the the big, bad interent. In short, they screwed up.
So tell us all, Mr. Wizard, why have WMD's if you're not going to use them?
Because it is a MAD world. The US and Soviets (now Russia) have mass fields of WMDs. But by your logic Nuclear Arms must not exist because no one is currently using them, eh?
You make a good point, one that I lean to (he used up most of his WMDs). However, its like you can't be a little bit pregnent. If he uses them at all, then saying we only had a little left over after gassing the Kurds becomes unbelievable. Plus there is the question of retaliation. Whatever he can launch against US forces, the US can lauch back at him ten fold and then some. He isn't going to 'win' in his mind if Baghdad is glowing in the dark for the next 10,000 years.
Tell that line to the Iranians, Kurds, and Iraqi disidents. Ooops, you can't. BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL VERY PUBLICALLY KILLED WITH WMDs. He had the weapons, not even France, Russia, and Germany will dispute that. The only questions were how much and what did he plan to do with them.
Let's also think this through a little bit. He sitting there, claiming not to have them. If he uses them, he just justified the whole US position. All support against the war goes out the window. His only option is to bore the US to death and hope they leave so you can climb back into power. Plus the little fact that no matter what you have, the US has in greater quantity and nastier doses. If you are a Middle-Eastern dictator on the Post-9/11 Shit List, do you really think the US is going to think twice about nuking you if you use a WMD first?
The Art professor DOES have a vested financial and otherwise interest in the status quo. Furthermore, many art types are actively panning digital in general. Those that are most likely feel threatened or pissed that they have to learn a new medium. The other art types that met Adams had no vested interest in keeping Adams happy, unlike the camera rep that had to face Adams and potentially answer for poor performance.
No, not really. After all, this artical is only about 7-10 years too late. The bubble not only busted up the dotcoms, it busted geek popularity. BTW, we're NERDS now rather than geeks because everyone wants the negative connotation back. The backlash is well underway. Enjoy!
Jesus H. Christ. I'm so sick of you "Its commercial so of course its wrong, why no, I didn't read the article" types. The Nikon rep, ACTUALLY MET Adams. He ACUTALLY WORKED WITH Adams for Nikon. He most likely has heard quite an earful on what Adams wanted and expected out of a camera. A guy who had to work to satisfy the camera demands of an artist like Adams just might be a good source to pose this completely hypothetical question. As opposed to an art professor who has vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Horse puckey. Not only has the artist, et al not lost a sale, but they just got free advertising. Yes, the music machine just SAVED money. What do I base this on? Facts. Fact: At the height of FTP mp3s, Napster and other fledgeling P2P progs, the record companies had the highest sales AND profits in thier history. Only with the economic downturn and the music industry's crackdown have sales slowed. File sharing is the new radio.
You hit it on the head with the words, "Pay per view." It is the holy grail of the entertainment world. This 'study' is most likely complete BS and will be the reason pointed to when all channels go pay per view. Of course, this pay per view stratigey is what gave the music industry Napster. What will happen to TV?
Yes, us arrogant Americans. We buy a product in OUR OWN COUNTRY and expect the service for that product to be provided in our own language. How dare we make demands when it is our time and money on the line.
And yeah, right that guy won the job/contract because he's qualified. He won it because he's cheap and no other reason.
It's all bullshit. They only have to sell your name once in order to start recieving spam and junk. Note to the clue impaired: They "sell" your name when you create the account, before you say no to spam and junk.
Not only does Ghost work flawlessly once you use the appropriate NTFS switches, you can take a backup of every file on the system. Usually you have to pay extra to the vendor for this feature, but I have restored entire servers from tape.
No, it doesn't. Work with SCSI and you will know that beyond a doubt, it is faster than IDE at every turn. IDE is great for low cost options, but cost is the only attractive thing about IDE drives.
The most brutal, oppressive, bloodthirsty, murderous regimes in history were atheist.
Not true. Most of our bloodist chapters of history were performed in the name of God. Crusades, Jihads, Convert or Die Missionaries. Maybe you need to go back and reread your history.
Slashdot Mirror
All fine and dandy, but Stallman's views on freedom and distribution are offtopic when talking about what software business will use. I'm attacking the cop out that OSS is all about developers scratching an itch. That's great and all, but it doesn't help me deploy. All my employeer cares about is getting stuff that works for us. If that means you pay someone to develop the software, then we will. Gladly. See, we don't want to hire a department of developers. We're not in the software business. That is why I don't care about source code. At work, OSS is a tool, not a right. I don't give a rat's ass that I can send the copy to a friend at work. My point is that if you want to see Linux and other OSS software used, sooner or later someone in the OSS community has to step up and be held accountable to the user community. If that doesn't sound like something you care for, then don't be suprised when Microsoft dominates almost every aspect of business software.
You can't possibly be suggesting that someone who can't afford new hardware can afford to call Microsoft for support, are you? Micrsoft does not support their stuff for free. If you call them, you will have to pay them. MS pushed the onus on the OEMs to do support. Since the hardware in question is definately out of support the only alternatives are to call Microsoft and pay a fee, or turn to the web. And just because MS dropped support doesn't mean Joe's Computer Shack will drop support. Here's a nickle, buy a clue.
The old Open Source dodge and weave. Your argument is a cop out. Either OSS is ready for the prime time or not. You either are a bunch of backroom hacks or serious players. Decide. Can't have it both ways. Don't want to answer to the end user experience? Don't bitch about Microsoft owning the desktop market AND the server market. No, really. Stop. Want end users to USE your software? Well, then you have to answer for the work you've done. Sorry, that's how it works. You see I don't care about source code. I have a computer. I have tasks to accomplish. Source code is a foreign language that I don't speak, and have no intention of speaking. So for me, you're no different than MS. You have a product you want me to use, so it better be compelling. If that is too much to ask of you, see my point above then stop wondering why right thinking individuals (and business) will gladly pay Microsoft. Either get in or STFU.
By and large, outsourcing is the new diet fad of the business world. Outsourcing makes sense when what you outsource isn't part of your core business. For example, let's say your an auto supplier. If you need a custom website, or customer front end to a database, it would make a lot more sense to outsource those tasks rather than hire a whole coding department to handle it. But it seems like we like to do everything ass-backwards. Non-software companies hire entire departments of coders, but software houses outsource. Its a mad, mad, mad world.
Not as scarce as it is made out to be. It was in the days of dial-up, but not now. Afterall, we have miles and miles of unused lines sitting around unsued now. The only other issue is that they built this big network and have this small, small gateway out the the big, bad interent. In short, they screwed up.
Because it is a MAD world. The US and Soviets (now Russia) have mass fields of WMDs. But by your logic Nuclear Arms must not exist because no one is currently using them, eh?
You make a good point, one that I lean to (he used up most of his WMDs). However, its like you can't be a little bit pregnent. If he uses them at all, then saying we only had a little left over after gassing the Kurds becomes unbelievable. Plus there is the question of retaliation. Whatever he can launch against US forces, the US can lauch back at him ten fold and then some. He isn't going to 'win' in his mind if Baghdad is glowing in the dark for the next 10,000 years.
Let's also think this through a little bit. He sitting there, claiming not to have them. If he uses them, he just justified the whole US position. All support against the war goes out the window. His only option is to bore the US to death and hope they leave so you can climb back into power. Plus the little fact that no matter what you have, the US has in greater quantity and nastier doses. If you are a Middle-Eastern dictator on the Post-9/11 Shit List, do you really think the US is going to think twice about nuking you if you use a WMD first?
The Art professor DOES have a vested financial and otherwise interest in the status quo. Furthermore, many art types are actively panning digital in general. Those that are most likely feel threatened or pissed that they have to learn a new medium. The other art types that met Adams had no vested interest in keeping Adams happy, unlike the camera rep that had to face Adams and potentially answer for poor performance.
That depends on the strength of the gravity well and your frame of reference.
j/k too. :-)
Nerd is a putdown. These people talking about he popularity of "nerds" are really giving geeks a back-handed compliment.
No, not really. After all, this artical is only about 7-10 years too late. The bubble not only busted up the dotcoms, it busted geek popularity. BTW, we're NERDS now rather than geeks because everyone wants the negative connotation back. The backlash is well underway. Enjoy!
Jesus H. Christ. I'm so sick of you "Its commercial so of course its wrong, why no, I didn't read the article" types. The Nikon rep, ACTUALLY MET Adams. He ACUTALLY WORKED WITH Adams for Nikon. He most likely has heard quite an earful on what Adams wanted and expected out of a camera. A guy who had to work to satisfy the camera demands of an artist like Adams just might be a good source to pose this completely hypothetical question. As opposed to an art professor who has vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Horse puckey. Not only has the artist, et al not lost a sale, but they just got free advertising. Yes, the music machine just SAVED money. What do I base this on? Facts. Fact: At the height of FTP mp3s, Napster and other fledgeling P2P progs, the record companies had the highest sales AND profits in thier history. Only with the economic downturn and the music industry's crackdown have sales slowed. File sharing is the new radio.
..and I played Oregon Trail through a teletype. Blah!
You hit it on the head with the words, "Pay per view." It is the holy grail of the entertainment world. This 'study' is most likely complete BS and will be the reason pointed to when all channels go pay per view. Of course, this pay per view stratigey is what gave the music industry Napster. What will happen to TV?
And yeah, right that guy won the job/contract because he's qualified. He won it because he's cheap and no other reason.
You're clearly part of the problem, not the solution. What's the matter? Will your l33tnez go down the toliet once everyone can use Linux?
It's all bullshit. They only have to sell your name once in order to start recieving spam and junk. Note to the clue impaired: They "sell" your name when you create the account, before you say no to spam and junk.
This is open source FUD at it's finest.
It's all double plus good.
No, it doesn't. Work with SCSI and you will know that beyond a doubt, it is faster than IDE at every turn. IDE is great for low cost options, but cost is the only attractive thing about IDE drives.
Not true. Most of our bloodist chapters of history were performed in the name of God. Crusades, Jihads, Convert or Die Missionaries. Maybe you need to go back and reread your history.
..And that 1.7 million won't cover the cost of the building you need to house them.